On Apr 5, 2010, at 2:25 PM, Matthew Flatt wrote:
I'm sympathetic to this argument, but doesn't it argue equally well
against changing the name of the constructor bound by `define-struct'
(i.e., dropping the `make-' prefix)?
That sounds like a good start.
The name `define-struct-type' would be more accurate, and it's
conveniently different from `define-struct', but it's long. Is there
something shorter (and not `define-struct') that would be a good
abbreviation of `define-struct-type'?
In a sense, define-struct is really define-type, but that of course is
taken.
Then there's the obvious
define-structure
which is apparently still around for old time's sake. Is it time to
recycle this name now?
;; ---
HtDP/2e will take over define-struct from Racket because I want it to
be a path into Racket. And I am sure HtDP/2e will soon gain the
mindshare of HtDP.
-- Matthias
_________________________________________________
For list-related administrative tasks:
http://list.cs.brown.edu/mailman/listinfo/plt-dev
